well... there ya have it:

looks like we have a 10th Democrat in the race for president

Why is the word of a general who left the military more important than that of all the others who stayed in?

Why the hell does everyone ignore my guy, Ron Paul??

Anyway, Mr. Bush ought to just die, and allow the worms to infest his corpse. And then he can burn in hell. Him and Dick Cheney.

2: Because it's against the law for active duty military to publicly criticize the commander-in-chief.

Yeah, but they choose to be active duty military.

Not everybody's in the position to be able to sacrifice their career. But it's pretty striking going down the list of retired military who have publicly criticized this administration's foreign policy. It's an awfully unusual situation. And stuff like this doesn't help.

GB, I don't understand how your 5 follows as a rebuttal to 4 (which I assume it's meant to be).

Why the hell does everyone ignore my guy, Ron Paul?

Because it's a safe bet that the only person running for president who has actually performed an abortion isn't going to win the Republican nomination.

5 is a rebuttal to 4 in that generals who choose to remain in the military presumably don't share the strong negative opinions of the few who choose to leave.

GB, the Administration has screwed up the Iraq war from the get go, by refusing to listen to Shinseki, Zinni and others who insisted that we need more troops and forcing them into retirement.

What we have now is an effort by the Administration to whitewash history and to claim that the generals are responsible for pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory, by not asking for enough troops. How you can defend this kind of bullshit is beyond me.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/01/11/generals/

http://www.votevets.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=249&Itemid=16
Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired:

"Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.

"Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril. ...

"As someone who served this nation for decades, I have the utmost respect for the office you hold. However, as a man of conscience, I could not sit idly by as you told the American people today that your veto was based on the recommendations of military men. Your administration ignored the advice of our military's finest minds before, and I see no evidence that you are listening to them now."

9: generals who choose to remain in the military presumably don't share the strong negative opinions of the few who choose to leave.

So, because it's rare to take the unprecedented, extreme step of ditching your entire military career to speak out against the White House's strategic vision in the midst of the war, you sagely conclude that everyone who hasn't gone that far must be happy.

You're taking the piss. I don't even believe that you believe that.

I'm just saying it's virtually certain that not everybody feels as strongly as he does. Obviously, if you ask someone who was pissed enough to leave someplace, you're going to hear a lot of negative comments about it. Presumably, Gen Petraeus and the other generals commanding our forces have a more positive opinion about their working relationship with the CIC.

Oh, I see. You're not actually defending this kind of bullshit, you're just saying that the generals who have NOT yet resigned in disgust, been forced out for dissent, are unhappy but not yet in a position to resign or just feel that it is their jobs to be good soldiers and play patsy for the Administration - those generals are more likely to have (or publicly express) more "positive opinions" about the CIC and civilian defense leadership than the generals whose negative opinions are so strong that they were either pushed out or have resigned and are taking strong public positions abot troop levels.

Thanks for making that clear.

GB, in the same vein, would you also say that those in Israel who are NOT criticizing Olmert for his handling of the attacks in Lebanon for the purpose of hamstringing Hezbollah are more likely to express positive views of Olmert's handling than those who are now raking him over the coals?

That would seem logical. Or they could just be apathetic.

13 is a shameless misrepresentation of what I wrote in 12. Make sure to clean all that straw off yourself before you come in the house.

Besides, 13 is just stupid on its own merits. You would have us believe there are only four possible categories that currently-serving generals can fall into: (1) gearing up to resign in disgust, (2) vulnerable to being forced out for dissent, (3) unhappy, but not in a position to resign, and (4) disingenuously "playing patsy" for the Administration.

Stack the deck like that and you can win any argument. I put it to you that there are generals, officers, and enlisted troops serving in our armed forces who fit into none of your four categories.

17: Besides, 13 is just stupid on its own merits.

Glass houses, coming from someone who's pushing a two-category classification system of Contented Serving Generals and Disgruntled Generals Who Are Leaving, in which I still don't believe you're naive enough to believe.

Why is the word of a general who left the military more important than that of all the others who stayed in?

Did apo, or anyone here, say it was more important? Or were you trying to say that since he left the military, we should dismiss anything he says out of hand?

And it's been pointed out above, but I'd like to reiterate that in the above sentence you seem to be asserting that "all the others who stayed in" must necessarily agree with and support Bush's Iraq policy. Surely you see that such a position is ridiculous?

Bastite was fired by CBS for appearing in that ad. Because, you know, any general who leaves the military and criticizes the Administration is nothing but a political operative, whereas generals who remain in the military and voice support for the administration are expressing their apolitical beliefs.